FCC chair defends broadband discounts for poor people against Republican attack

Lawmakers criticized FCC for something that was decided by Congress, chair says.

See full article...

 

[AmanoJyaku]

"it appears the vast majority of tax dollars have gone to households that already had broadband prior to the subsidy."

That seems like a valid argument, no?

No, because for people with low incomes, there are a multitude of things competing for those same dollars.

It's also unclear how many households have yet to apply for this program.

I saw your post about applying for a job with a paper resume, and I'm happy it worked out for you. But even McDonald's wants you to apply online, and the number of small businesses in a lot of areas is in decline. The pay at most small businesses isn't something you can survive on, either. Hell, you can't even access the offices of most businesses today, they're gated behind security.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

Billions for the rich is fine, $30 for the poor is wasteful.

Republican logic.

And I'm still very surprised that some folks are here baffled, as if they didn't know that the Republican party's #1 priority is defending the rich and trying to funnel as much gov't money to the rich as possible. This is generally unpopular amongst the people, so the Republicans have to cobble support by attracting the religious nuts, the racists, the white supremacists, and the gullible in order to get elected. Every time GOPs get elected, the first thing they do is a massive tax cut for the rich. Every single time.

The bullshit goes farther than that. Billions for the rich is justified as "helping the job creators create more jobs". And the public eats it up.

Except, the "job creators" aren't creating more jobs, and certainly not jobs with living wages.

Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans, and have been for about 100 years.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

What do you mean "no"? Thats in direct agreement with what I quoted. Why are we giving people money for something they already have when there are a multitude of things competing for those same dollars? Shouldn't we be giving poor people money for things they can't afford?

Because it means they paid for the broadband instead of paying for something else. They need both, but can only afford one.

Lots of people have economic situations so dire, they're forced to choose between one thing or the other.

A quick search of "call center" on Indeed shows a ton of low-paying jobs requiring broadband.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

Think of it this way, most people on food stamps would buy food anyway. If they didn’t, they’d be dead. That doesn’t mean we should end food programs

Subsidising necessities, which internet is these days, drastically improves quality of life and reduces financial stress. Subsidising the most necessary items (food, water, electricity) allows for people to make their own decisions on less critical items, rather than fund those less critical things directly.

Also, broadband is a universal need, while other needs are more limited in scope. One person might require a suit for a security job. Another person might require bike tires for their delivery job. Both of them would require broadband, and the money they would be paying for broadband might prevent the purchase of the suit and tires.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

Right, because I was talking about only you... What about all the other people out there with health issues who can't pay their car payments or mortgages? What about people who didn't take on college debt and worked side jobs to pay for their state school? Why pick one tiny slice of the population and give them a free ride and ignore everyone else? This is why it's not popular with most voters on both sides of the aisle.

Your opposition to bailing out student loan debt is more than just an example of being a selfish asshole. It's also an example of bad economics. Countries like Denmark cover tuition, and pay stipends. This, along with other strong social safety net programs, explains why the country has low unemployment and poverty. Their numbers are better than ours, despite your bootstraps rhetoric.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

Apples to oranges. We are not talking about subsidized education for students, we are talking about canceling debt for people who for the most part, blew their money on lifestyles choices rather than pay their bills. The people who paid for their education or chose better careers and worked harder get screwed. My point is why pick one little slice of the population, why not give all the taxpayers an equal slice of the debt forgiveness if the purpose is a strong safety net. It's a BS vote buying scheme for people in a certain demographic.

We're not?

I'm ok with this if we stop the ridiculous idea of bailing out people's student loan debt. I pay a large amount of taxes and don't really want to fund other peoples bad decisions. I don't like bailing out the automakers, banks, and steel mills either. It just reinforces bad decision making by removing the consequences.

Funding a discount on broadband for lower income folks is at least worthwhile and is arguably a legit hand up to a better future. Plus it's a minute fractions of a penny on the dollar overall.

I get that point, but it seems really unfair to the majority of folks out there who paid their college loans and made better decisions with their time and money. It's not a popular idea with the majority of voters in the US either as it only benefits a small slice of the population. If you have college loan debt and are working as a barista, that's on you. If you have a decent job, you have the ability to pay your bills.

You could've fooled me. Canceling student debt is the first step towards subsidized education. The difference is the former is a one-time solution, while the later is perpetual. That you want to split hairs and go on tangents doesn't change the fact you entered the thread talking about subsidized education. To say nothing of all the other things wrong in your posts...

 

[AmanoJyaku]

Yeah, let's keep being 'polite and civil' with a fucking moron.
It's not 'opinions' we are fed up with. You've stated 'opinion' as fact and then tried to play fast and loose. We're on to you, bub.

You left off the bit where our friend blames poor economic outcomes on personal choices rather than declining upward mobility.

This stuff has been studied. Income hasn't been rising to match the pace of inflation. Housing costs are taking a greater share of income. Education and health are twice as expensive as they were 50 years ago. And income distribution has shifted from the middle class to the upper class.

But gafx knows better. The fault clearly lies with all those people who refuse to work at Domino's for minimum wage.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

…except for 1976-1980, which was the disaster of stagflation under Carter. It took Reagan and Fed Chairman Volcker to break inflation, and bring the economy under control. Coupled with a simplification in taxes, and, government spending, the US economy did well until the recession in 91..

Except, that started under Nixon, and continued through Ford. And let's not talk about the economic disaster that was Reagan's first term.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

How the hell would you know, this is your first post here.

On that account, yes...

 

[AmanoJyaku]

You cite some eye-watering numbers, but if you read the linked report from Senator Whitehouse’s office, you get a much different and quite an unclear picture. The $646 billion number comes from an accounting of the cost of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, and no information about how that number was calculated is provided. In actual cash subsidy, which would be the equivalent to the cash subsidy for broadband being discussed in this article, the cited report says “In the United States, by some estimates taxpayers pay about $20 billion dollars every year to the fossil fuel industry.” Similarly, no source is given for those estimates or how they were calculated, and of course the industry includes refineries, oil services, all many of companies. Since the number only comes from “some estimates,” there are obviously other estimates that are lower, and likely still others than are much lower. In other words, these suspect large numbers are provided for political reasons - they sound very bad and make people mad. To be clear, subsidizing any profitable industry is questionable I would agree, and certainly climate change is a major problem that has to be addressed.

If only you bothered to quote the statement in its context. It was the opening statement to a public hearing. The evidence was supplied in that hearing. Which you can find if you bother to look for it. I suspect you don't care, so I'm not going to link it.